Subject:
|
Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Sep 2001 00:46:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
399 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Horst Lehner writes:
> Hello Eric,
>
> > I have to jump in...
>
> So do I. BTW, I think I understand at least part of the emotionality of the
> issue, but we simply cannot afford to let our action be guided by it, so
> here goes my response:
>
> > What do you think pacifism at a time like now is going to get us?
> > All it will get us is more innocent Americans (among others) killed.
>
> And your evidence for that is ... ?
This one is easy...
First you have the origional WTC Bombing (not directly tied to bin Laden).
Second you have the two bombings at the US embassies in Africa (tied to bin
Laden)
Third you have the attack on the USS Cole (also tied to bin Laden)
Fourth you have 9/11/01 (decent chance it can be tied to bin Laden)
There is a history, and each time they get more bold. I can't imagine anything
worse than last week other than a wides spread chemical or biologic attack, or
God forbid a Nuclear attack.
The history is there. If we do nothing it will get worse. Unfortunately if we
do something it may get worse in the short run as well but in time, with the
use of the military, and by cutting off their funding, we can reduce the threat
as much as possible.
>
> > Do you think these people are just going to stop now? Do you think if we
> > say
> > "Please don't do that again" that they will listen?
>
> Nobody suggested that. Read Richard's original posting, and you will see.
>
> > For goodness sake (I am really trying to stay in control here), I don't
> > think
> > we should just bomb the heck our of any country and kill innocent civilians
> > but
> > I do think our military, whether that be bombs, special opps, or full scale
> > invasion is required
>
> ... to reach which goal exactly?
1. capture or kill bin Laden.
2. capture or kill his next in command.
3. capture or kill any other identifiable leaders and their next in command.
4. Probably removal of governments like the Taliban that support them as well.
>
> > and unfortunately when that happens innocents will more
> > than likely get in the way.
>
> ... and those who survive will refuel the terrorist camps your strategy
> missed -- and my guess is that this will be most of them.
I agree, but, you have to first cut the head off. You then need to take away
their funding. Last weeks attacks took a fair amount of cash to pull off.
Several terrorist had to be trained to fly and that costs money. They also had
to have a place to live and a support structure. That has to be done away
with. That may not take all the terrorist but it reduces the threat of
something like what happened last week a great deal.
Sure one or two might blow themselves up and unfortunately they might take a
couple of innocent victims with them but that is probably a reality we will
have to live with. We cannot live with the threat as it stands today however.
The ability to take out 7,000+ people in one shot is intolerable (not to say
that taking out 5 people is tolerable but we may just have to live with that
fact).
>
> Basically, this issue is simple. Nobody can offer a solution that will work
> for sure. That doesn't make a strategy that is doomed to fail any more
> attractive. And I simply don't see how bombing Afghanistan should hit bin
> Laden. Or how invading Afghanistan should work. I don't even know whether
> bin Laden is still there ...
Hey I don't know he is still there either. There are now roomers he may have
fled to Indonesia, a hugh country with thousands of little islands. That is
definitely a worse place to have to hunt him down. That said I think we need
to do everything we can to try and locate him and once we have his location we
have to take him out. We can't be happy with that either. We have to keep it
up until we reduce the threat to something a fly swatter can take care of.
Right now we don't have any single weapon that will solve the problem. We have
to use every weapon can and that includes political, financial, and
technilogical weapons as well.
It is looking more and more like someone (or several someone's) tried to profit
from this attack through transactions in stock markets around the world. It
started with the short selling of insurance resellers in Germany and right now
it looks like something similar happened in the US with the Airlines. I hope
that this was the terrorists biggest mistake in all of this. I hope it leaves
a clear trail back to the people involved and their financial resources so we
can cut them off from their financial resources.
Eric K.
So you know where I am comming from... My father had 2 co-workers on American
Flight 11. This is a small company in terms of head count and it hit them real
hard. They went to one wake and funeral last week and then the entire company
drove to NYC to go to another wake and funeral. I still don't think my father
has recovered and to tell the truth I worry a bit for his health. My mother
also had a client who's "significant other" was also on flight 11, and my
Brother-in-law who is an elementary school teacher has a student who's mother
was also on flight 11.
I, fortunately, don't personally know anyone from the flights but I have
experianced the pain just as every American has and I have also seen the pain
in the eyes of people directly affected by this. The last couple of weeks have
been hell for all of us (freedom loving people everywhere). I just can't sit
by and let this continue. We have to do everything in our power to stop
(greatly reduce) the threat. If that means we can do it without taking a shot
then I am all for it but I don't think that is the case. At some point in the
future our soldiers are going to have to be put at risk. For me, and many
others, that is a risk I am willing to take.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
| Hello Eric, (...) I find "pacifism" a gross mischaracterization of the US reaction to islamistic terror in the past. True, not every attack got its direct military response, but pacifism is not one of those things you can switch on and off on a (...) (23 years ago, 21-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
| Hello Eric, (...) So do I. BTW, I think I understand at least part of the emotionality of the issue, but we simply cannot afford to let our action be guided by it, so here goes my response: (...) And your evidence for that is ... ? (...) Nobody (...) (23 years ago, 21-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
55 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
